You don't have to purchase a Mac, and nowhere in the dev agreement does it require one. The simulator only runs on a Mac, but C code can be written on any platform. You only require access to a Mac to test the compiled code, and for some of the developer tools that allow for packaging for final code delivery to apple, and that can easily be done on ANYONE'S Mac, not one you must own.
Please use the correct language. This UNCONFIRMED "investigation" is in fact an INQUIRY, not an investigation. These are VASTLY different things. An Inquiry amounts to little more than a letter sent to multiple parties requesting answers to some basic questions to determine intent, economic and market impact, and some basic information, any may or may not lead to a PRELIMINARY investigation. Most inquiries never go any farther.
Apple laid out clear, understandable, technical reasons for the decision. The decision in now way closes the market to any developers, and does not mandate and specific or proprietary tools, it simply restricts choices in compliance with security and coding standards Apple holds the developers to.
I agree, but currently, that is not a market they seek to compete in. 95% of people only ever upgrade memory or a HDD in a PC anyway. A small few might replace a video card in a generic PC. (and you CAN get aftermarket vid cards for most of the iMacs, its just not easy, but the mini card standard is becoming more of a standard, and the newest macs should have newer cards available in about a year).
The real modders who care about customizable PCs are less than 1% of the market (yes, really), and they're not very profitable either, and a company like apple would further take on a significant support burden, and Apple also knows those people don't buy the bulk of their components direct. Look to Falcon NW, or Alienware: their custom rigs START at way over your suggested price.
The modded PC market is ridiculously cutthroat, highly competitive, and not an easy target. 80% of people who have PCs could today replace them with a Mac without burden to their daily use, and Apple is in a much better position to cater to those who can accept generic rigs, and when they have 30+% of the market branch out into customization.
I'd like to see it as much as you, but the X-Mac is a dream for now. One i've committed to ignoring as nothing more than a dream.
You have to pay WAY more money just to get the SDK from any competitor....and no, you do NOT have to ask permission to publish apps for up to 100 devices, only to publish more.
It;s not a closed system, it's simply a SYSTEM. Its only CLOSED if the general public is refused access, or given extensive barriers. I don't know any programmer who would not instantly drop $100 for a kit that includes both an SDK, a fully functional device simulator software pack, and extensive documentation.
You don't have to pay to develop flash, but you ALSO do not have to pay to develop HTML5 web apps for the IPhone, which are ALSO hosted in a system on Apple.com and advertised for you free.
Also, you can't make money off flash apps except through advertising, but you can make money off iPhone apps with or without advertising, and if you WANT advertising, Apple already negotiated the contract for you and provides the interfaces, saving your tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees alone for a contract, and saving you the trouble of finding advertisers.
Seriously, Parallels 3 is 2 generations old. What cheap drugs were you on that you though 3D gaming would work at all in a 2 generation old virtualization engine, when there have been constant articles on the continual progress that has been made in each generation even to make that marginally possible, and especially since you read/. and should have seen those articles!?!
Also, running 2 OS on 1GB of RAM? i don;t even recomend running EITHER separately on less than 2GB of RAM.
Finally, the specs alone indicated the Radeon you listed is not supported. The system requirements for Mac were not hard to find...
Also, it's a B-E-T-A, its fucking SUPPOSED to have issues. The Mac dev team runs mostly independent from the PC dev team and the BattleNet Dev team, it's not like they stopped one team to have all the devs shift over and work on code they don't know and don't support... These issues WILL be handled before the game launches (btw, its delayed until late 2010 at least, so they've got time) or Blizzard would be panned by the press and loose millions in failed sales.
Actually, Apple is highly focused on gaming, as well as video editing, on their entire line. Blizzard has comitted to releasing all future games for both Mac and PC (simultaneously when possible). getting dedicated GPUs in all Mac desktop systems should happen with the next release when i5 becomes the default processor across the entire line (excluding the Mini, which should at least get the 9600M anyway assuming they keep that model, rumor is they are).
The most basic mac in each line likely won't include these options, but i see the new iMac being offered both with and without GPU as all the iMacs were 2 generations ago (no more stock-only option on the base model).
The 100 device limit is for ordinary devs. It's a reasonable alpha/beta test pool. It;s also a reasonable number for most businesses that want to deploy custom apps internally that they do NOT want to share with the world. That number IS however somewhat flexible, and Apple has in fact authorized businesses with solid cause to deploy apps to many more devices than 100.
You can write for your own device. Any app can be written and distributed on up to 100 iPhone/pod/pad devices WITHOUT going through the apple store or approval process. You need only subscribe to acquire the tool set and SDK.
which, btw, until 2016, is essentially FREE except for large media companies that already pay for that for general video encoding (not hosting, think TV studios), and for companies with over 25,000 paying subscribers.
Applegets no kickbacks from people using H.264 other than they don't have to cross-code support for other formats into quicktime (which they chose not to do for 15 years, so why would that change anyway).
More to the point, the virus never TOUCHES the iPad, or even it;s files on the Windows machine. The iTunes trojan only affects AIM, Messenger, and other application software on the PC, and attempts to steal PC passwords, it;s only using the iPad in name as a method of social engineering, and its technically not even infecting iTunes!
Exactly. Its a Windows Trojan that happens to target iPad owners. Its no different than any other trojan mailware targeting users of windows that happen to own some other product, like all the "symbian viruses"
The only concern is the iPad can in fact be access such, which I'm sure is a door apple will close quickly (and its likely a door firmware hackers have enjoyed using for some time to jailbreak the iPhone OS, so yet again that door will likely be closed, and apple will get blamed for blocking jailbreakers when for 3 revisions of the OS they chose to leave the known door open as there were no exploits, and they damned well knew how to close it...
Yes, thank you... Anyone with iTunes should ALSO know, most especially Windows users who raised quite the stink about it, that ALL apple software is updated EXCLUSIVELY through the Apple Software Update Utility, and that Apple NEVER advertises updates through anything resembling SPAM mail.
When a JOURNALIST is involved, laws are slightly altered. Further,there was an explicit contract, and lawyers were involved in that sale, and the owner of the stereo was already contacted and denied having lost it, and this was not only recorded, but both the guy and Gizmodo went to GREAT lengths to contact appropriate people, including using inside personnel not just customer service.
For property to be stolen, it must actually be reported stolen. Apple admitted it was lost and thanked Gizmodo for returning it to them. At NO POINT did Gizmodo expect to keep the device they purchased, it was handed over in due course, and the guy was told that was exactly how it would play down, and he did get paid for his story (and his PHOTOS that he himself took, which guaranteed no OTHER news organization could use them, protecting Gizmodo's interests as a press agency, which is WELL worth $5K.
I know the guy who took the pic of Brittney Spears getting married in Vegas. He got $750K for that... 5K is nothing, EASILY confirmed to be payment for story and photos, and Gizmodo DID act in complete good faith, not posting the article nor dissasembling the device until AFTER Apple denied ownership.
Case in point, the CA DA has STOPPED further investigation until Chan's status as a journalist (which we all easily can agree he is) is confirmed, and if so, charges will be dropped and the case can not legally continue. Additionally, they have questioned the content of the warrant per CA law, and the existance at all of a crime.
Well, considering Giz's legal team did some research BEFORE buying the phone (regardless of who wants to throw semantics into did they buy the phone vs did they buy the story), fact is, 1) the press has certain extended rights in this situation that have previously been upheld in court, 2) Apple did not choose to file charges after they were successfully contacted (which Giz continued to do for MANY days before finally posting the story), and 3) a 3rd party, not the state itself can file charges for this crime personally.
Possession of the device? Was it bought, was it not, that all depends on the wording in a contract, which I'm sure was carefully constructed by a lawyer, who likely knows much better than you or I the status of the laws in that state.
I'm not an expert in CA's version of this law, but here, it;s only stolen property if its REPORTED stolen, or if the owner comes to claim it and wishes to prosecute. Apple admitted they're not interested in filing criminal charges against Gizmodo (they could not buy publicity like they got, even if they didn't want it on that day). Since there's noone to make the charge, the police can not act on their own. Cops can't bust you for unreported crimes unless they're under certain statuates.
They paid $5K for the STORY, as registered journalists, and only after discussing this with lawyers, and after both Giz and the device's finder BOTH contacted apple and apple DENIED the prototype being lost. Gizmodo acquired the device under the promise to return it to it's rightful owner should one come forward, and the person who gave them the device could not be blamed for handing it over to an organization with known internal ties at the company.
Gizmodo never bought the phone, only the story. This has been upheld NUMEROUS times in local and federal courts. Thanks for playing...
Sorry, they TRIED, as did the guy who sold it, to contact Apple. Apple actually DENIED the device was lost... Also, in the end, through MUCH trial and effort, the device WAS returned. Gizmodo did not buy the device, the device was handed over willingly and for free, gizmodo bought the STORY. The device was returned.
When it comes to PII, PCI, Medical data and other forms of PHI, and more, where interstate commerce is concerned, this already IS the law, federal law...
Also, it is NOT against the law to store this data, your name, phone number, tax ID, address, and more are all matter of PUBLIC RECORD. Even who owns your mortgage is easily accessible public information. The account numbers, pin number, balances, payment information, etc have to be obfuscated, and access to that information muse be through an encrypted wall (HTTPS, and in some cases by dual factor authentication), but it is perfectly legal to HAVE that information.
Further, even under this new law, as incorrectly reported (see ful text, linked many times above), its not required to be stored encrypted unless the data is portable (on a laptop, portable disk, or tape). Encrypting on the server is not required.
Actually, that's already been upheld in federal courts. States DO have the right to collect taxes for cross-state purchases for their residents, and CAN regulate business transactions with their residents. This is a nominal extension of that power, and quite likely completely legal. Enforcing it directly outside their boarders (ex. inspecting corporations, or mandating standards)? Likely no, but this regulation does not do that. This is a fine levied on data breech, and that CAN be collected across state lines.
A drill and some weak (EPA approved) acids work wonders, especially after security erasing arrays to government standards....not that even IF you had a drive from one of my SAN systems there's be anything on it of any use to you. Between deduplication, thin provisioning, and mass striping across dozens and hundreds of disks, there's nothing on even a whole drive TRAY you could use to reliably rebuild data, even if you did have access to a fiber channel drive controller...
1) corporations typically don't resell old hard drives that were once in servers. Many of them get returned at lease end, the rest are of little value as used components having run constantly for 4-8 years under load. 2) Most server HDDs don't go in computers. We use almost exclusively FC and SCSI disks, and a lot of SAS now as well. These drives are 10K or 15K, make a shit load of noise, and 3) RAID controllers obfuscate the data. You'd need a near complete RAID set to be able to reconstitute the data after buying or finding a used disk drive. If the disks were in a SAN chassis, it;s even worse as deduplication, horizontal and vertical striping, and thin provisioning make it virtually impossible to rebuild the system from a collection of disks unless you had the entire SAN system (which are never resold, they're almost always on lease, or are bought out and used as back-end systems for low priority data or copies of data. 4) Under HIPAA, SOx, DOD STIGs, and more standards, HDDs that contained PHI, PCI, or other sensitive data must be scrubbed to government standards before being disposed of. For us, that means full electronic erasure using an approved government tool, followed by drilling not less than 3 holes in the platters!
This standard makes sense for laptops and other portable systems and databases. It also makes sense for backups, which are mostly linear data and easy to decipher with the right drive and software. You'll also notice the law if written to fine people for BREACH, LOSS, and EXPOSURE, but says nothing about fining corporations that simply do not "comply" with the standards. The data actualyl has to be lost in order to be fined. We DO use secure authentication systems (dual factor for most PHI data access) and regardless of whether or not the SQL, DB2 or Oracle systems were encrypted, if the user authenticates, the server will happily decrypt and access the data.
What would have made a lot more sense for MA in this case was simply to demand stict data access (physical) requirements, background screenings, corporate policy for drive and tape and serer disposal and scrubbing, but then, they'd not be doing anything the federal government did not already require for those of use hosting medical, credit card, or other private and secure data... We're already bound by these standards...
I listed the alternatives to buying from ARM direct, and included which one's leveraged ARM. By NOT noting intel was an ARM clone, that should have been obvious it was not an ARM chip. From what i can tell, Morestwon is also no an ARM based technology. There are others as well...
It's a COMPUTER monitor, not a TV... Those additional lines mean MORE ON SCREEN OBJECTS, better window management, more text, larger views of images, and the ability to view a 1080p video in a window while having the controls (other other objects not overlap it!
Its about USABILITY, not image quality. And yes, 1600 vertical lines is SUBSTANTIALLY better than 1080p on the same screen, if you have source video material at the higher resolution (like a video game).
The response times of 1080p and 1600 line displays are the same if both use the same techology. Also, check again about that 120 or 240Hz display... if you read the fine print, thats how quickly the TV's onboard engine can render frames, but has NOTHING to do with the grey-to-black or color-to-color repsonse time of the individual pixels, whith on even the best displays made is still not much less than 2ms... (which is NO WHERE NEAR 240 times per second)
You do not know what you are talking about. Go read some white papers, study LCD technology, and then come back and apologize.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to purchase a Mac, and nowhere in the dev agreement does it require one. The simulator only runs on a Mac, but C code can be written on any platform. You only require access to a Mac to test the compiled code, and for some of the developer tools that allow for packaging for final code delivery to apple, and that can easily be done on ANYONE'S Mac, not one you must own.
Please use the correct language. This UNCONFIRMED "investigation" is in fact an INQUIRY, not an investigation. These are VASTLY different things. An Inquiry amounts to little more than a letter sent to multiple parties requesting answers to some basic questions to determine intent, economic and market impact, and some basic information, any may or may not lead to a PRELIMINARY investigation. Most inquiries never go any farther.
Apple laid out clear, understandable, technical reasons for the decision. The decision in now way closes the market to any developers, and does not mandate and specific or proprietary tools, it simply restricts choices in compliance with security and coding standards Apple holds the developers to.
I agree, but currently, that is not a market they seek to compete in. 95% of people only ever upgrade memory or a HDD in a PC anyway. A small few might replace a video card in a generic PC. (and you CAN get aftermarket vid cards for most of the iMacs, its just not easy, but the mini card standard is becoming more of a standard, and the newest macs should have newer cards available in about a year).
The real modders who care about customizable PCs are less than 1% of the market (yes, really), and they're not very profitable either, and a company like apple would further take on a significant support burden, and Apple also knows those people don't buy the bulk of their components direct. Look to Falcon NW, or Alienware: their custom rigs START at way over your suggested price.
The modded PC market is ridiculously cutthroat, highly competitive, and not an easy target. 80% of people who have PCs could today replace them with a Mac without burden to their daily use, and Apple is in a much better position to cater to those who can accept generic rigs, and when they have 30+% of the market branch out into customization.
I'd like to see it as much as you, but the X-Mac is a dream for now. One i've committed to ignoring as nothing more than a dream.
You have to pay WAY more money just to get the SDK from any competitor. ...and no, you do NOT have to ask permission to publish apps for up to 100 devices, only to publish more.
It;s not a closed system, it's simply a SYSTEM. Its only CLOSED if the general public is refused access, or given extensive barriers. I don't know any programmer who would not instantly drop $100 for a kit that includes both an SDK, a fully functional device simulator software pack, and extensive documentation.
You don't have to pay to develop flash, but you ALSO do not have to pay to develop HTML5 web apps for the IPhone, which are ALSO hosted in a system on Apple.com and advertised for you free.
Also, you can't make money off flash apps except through advertising, but you can make money off iPhone apps with or without advertising, and if you WANT advertising, Apple already negotiated the contract for you and provides the interfaces, saving your tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees alone for a contract, and saving you the trouble of finding advertisers.
Seriously, Parallels 3 is 2 generations old. What cheap drugs were you on that you though 3D gaming would work at all in a 2 generation old virtualization engine, when there have been constant articles on the continual progress that has been made in each generation even to make that marginally possible, and especially since you read /. and should have seen those articles!?!
Also, running 2 OS on 1GB of RAM? i don;t even recomend running EITHER separately on less than 2GB of RAM.
Finally, the specs alone indicated the Radeon you listed is not supported. The system requirements for Mac were not hard to find...
Also, it's a B-E-T-A, its fucking SUPPOSED to have issues. The Mac dev team runs mostly independent from the PC dev team and the BattleNet Dev team, it's not like they stopped one team to have all the devs shift over and work on code they don't know and don't support... These issues WILL be handled before the game launches (btw, its delayed until late 2010 at least, so they've got time) or Blizzard would be panned by the press and loose millions in failed sales.
Actually, Apple is highly focused on gaming, as well as video editing, on their entire line. Blizzard has comitted to releasing all future games for both Mac and PC (simultaneously when possible). getting dedicated GPUs in all Mac desktop systems should happen with the next release when i5 becomes the default processor across the entire line (excluding the Mini, which should at least get the 9600M anyway assuming they keep that model, rumor is they are).
The most basic mac in each line likely won't include these options, but i see the new iMac being offered both with and without GPU as all the iMacs were 2 generations ago (no more stock-only option on the base model).
It's $100.
The 100 device limit is for ordinary devs. It's a reasonable alpha/beta test pool. It;s also a reasonable number for most businesses that want to deploy custom apps internally that they do NOT want to share with the world. That number IS however somewhat flexible, and Apple has in fact authorized businesses with solid cause to deploy apps to many more devices than 100.
You can write for your own device. Any app can be written and distributed on up to 100 iPhone/pod/pad devices WITHOUT going through the apple store or approval process. You need only subscribe to acquire the tool set and SDK.
which, btw, until 2016, is essentially FREE except for large media companies that already pay for that for general video encoding (not hosting, think TV studios), and for companies with over 25,000 paying subscribers.
Applegets no kickbacks from people using H.264 other than they don't have to cross-code support for other formats into quicktime (which they chose not to do for 15 years, so why would that change anyway).
More to the point, the virus never TOUCHES the iPad, or even it;s files on the Windows machine. The iTunes trojan only affects AIM, Messenger, and other application software on the PC, and attempts to steal PC passwords, it;s only using the iPad in name as a method of social engineering, and its technically not even infecting iTunes!
Exactly. Its a Windows Trojan that happens to target iPad owners. Its no different than any other trojan mailware targeting users of windows that happen to own some other product, like all the "symbian viruses"
The only concern is the iPad can in fact be access such, which I'm sure is a door apple will close quickly (and its likely a door firmware hackers have enjoyed using for some time to jailbreak the iPhone OS, so yet again that door will likely be closed, and apple will get blamed for blocking jailbreakers when for 3 revisions of the OS they chose to leave the known door open as there were no exploits, and they damned well knew how to close it...
Yes, thank you... Anyone with iTunes should ALSO know, most especially Windows users who raised quite the stink about it, that ALL apple software is updated EXCLUSIVELY through the Apple Software Update Utility, and that Apple NEVER advertises updates through anything resembling SPAM mail.
When a JOURNALIST is involved, laws are slightly altered. Further,there was an explicit contract, and lawyers were involved in that sale, and the owner of the stereo was already contacted and denied having lost it, and this was not only recorded, but both the guy and Gizmodo went to GREAT lengths to contact appropriate people, including using inside personnel not just customer service.
For property to be stolen, it must actually be reported stolen. Apple admitted it was lost and thanked Gizmodo for returning it to them. At NO POINT did Gizmodo expect to keep the device they purchased, it was handed over in due course, and the guy was told that was exactly how it would play down, and he did get paid for his story (and his PHOTOS that he himself took, which guaranteed no OTHER news organization could use them, protecting Gizmodo's interests as a press agency, which is WELL worth $5K.
I know the guy who took the pic of Brittney Spears getting married in Vegas. He got $750K for that... 5K is nothing, EASILY confirmed to be payment for story and photos, and Gizmodo DID act in complete good faith, not posting the article nor dissasembling the device until AFTER Apple denied ownership.
Arrest? yes. Be issued a warrant? no.
Case in point, the CA DA has STOPPED further investigation until Chan's status as a journalist (which we all easily can agree he is) is confirmed, and if so, charges will be dropped and the case can not legally continue. Additionally, they have questioned the content of the warrant per CA law, and the existance at all of a crime.
Well, considering Giz's legal team did some research BEFORE buying the phone (regardless of who wants to throw semantics into did they buy the phone vs did they buy the story), fact is, 1) the press has certain extended rights in this situation that have previously been upheld in court, 2) Apple did not choose to file charges after they were successfully contacted (which Giz continued to do for MANY days before finally posting the story), and 3) a 3rd party, not the state itself can file charges for this crime personally.
Possession of the device? Was it bought, was it not, that all depends on the wording in a contract, which I'm sure was carefully constructed by a lawyer, who likely knows much better than you or I the status of the laws in that state.
I'm not an expert in CA's version of this law, but here, it;s only stolen property if its REPORTED stolen, or if the owner comes to claim it and wishes to prosecute. Apple admitted they're not interested in filing criminal charges against Gizmodo (they could not buy publicity like they got, even if they didn't want it on that day). Since there's noone to make the charge, the police can not act on their own. Cops can't bust you for unreported crimes unless they're under certain statuates.
They paid $5K for the STORY, as registered journalists, and only after discussing this with lawyers, and after both Giz and the device's finder BOTH contacted apple and apple DENIED the prototype being lost. Gizmodo acquired the device under the promise to return it to it's rightful owner should one come forward, and the person who gave them the device could not be blamed for handing it over to an organization with known internal ties at the company.
Gizmodo never bought the phone, only the story. This has been upheld NUMEROUS times in local and federal courts. Thanks for playing...
Sorry, they TRIED, as did the guy who sold it, to contact Apple. Apple actually DENIED the device was lost... Also, in the end, through MUCH trial and effort, the device WAS returned. Gizmodo did not buy the device, the device was handed over willingly and for free, gizmodo bought the STORY. The device was returned.
When it comes to PII, PCI, Medical data and other forms of PHI, and more, where interstate commerce is concerned, this already IS the law, federal law...
Also, it is NOT against the law to store this data, your name, phone number, tax ID, address, and more are all matter of PUBLIC RECORD. Even who owns your mortgage is easily accessible public information. The account numbers, pin number, balances, payment information, etc have to be obfuscated, and access to that information muse be through an encrypted wall (HTTPS, and in some cases by dual factor authentication), but it is perfectly legal to HAVE that information.
Further, even under this new law, as incorrectly reported (see ful text, linked many times above), its not required to be stored encrypted unless the data is portable (on a laptop, portable disk, or tape). Encrypting on the server is not required.
Actually, that's already been upheld in federal courts. States DO have the right to collect taxes for cross-state purchases for their residents, and CAN regulate business transactions with their residents. This is a nominal extension of that power, and quite likely completely legal. Enforcing it directly outside their boarders (ex. inspecting corporations, or mandating standards)? Likely no, but this regulation does not do that. This is a fine levied on data breech, and that CAN be collected across state lines.
Wrong. See mythbusters... The only possible damage to the microwave if if the substance in it catches fire.
A drill and some weak (EPA approved) acids work wonders, especially after security erasing arrays to government standards. ...not that even IF you had a drive from one of my SAN systems there's be anything on it of any use to you. Between deduplication, thin provisioning, and mass striping across dozens and hundreds of disks, there's nothing on even a whole drive TRAY you could use to reliably rebuild data, even if you did have access to a fiber channel drive controller...
1) corporations typically don't resell old hard drives that were once in servers. Many of them get returned at lease end, the rest are of little value as used components having run constantly for 4-8 years under load.
2) Most server HDDs don't go in computers. We use almost exclusively FC and SCSI disks, and a lot of SAS now as well. These drives are 10K or 15K, make a shit load of noise, and
3) RAID controllers obfuscate the data. You'd need a near complete RAID set to be able to reconstitute the data after buying or finding a used disk drive. If the disks were in a SAN chassis, it;s even worse as deduplication, horizontal and vertical striping, and thin provisioning make it virtually impossible to rebuild the system from a collection of disks unless you had the entire SAN system (which are never resold, they're almost always on lease, or are bought out and used as back-end systems for low priority data or copies of data.
4) Under HIPAA, SOx, DOD STIGs, and more standards, HDDs that contained PHI, PCI, or other sensitive data must be scrubbed to government standards before being disposed of. For us, that means full electronic erasure using an approved government tool, followed by drilling not less than 3 holes in the platters!
This standard makes sense for laptops and other portable systems and databases. It also makes sense for backups, which are mostly linear data and easy to decipher with the right drive and software. You'll also notice the law if written to fine people for BREACH, LOSS, and EXPOSURE, but says nothing about fining corporations that simply do not "comply" with the standards. The data actualyl has to be lost in order to be fined. We DO use secure authentication systems (dual factor for most PHI data access) and regardless of whether or not the SQL, DB2 or Oracle systems were encrypted, if the user authenticates, the server will happily decrypt and access the data.
What would have made a lot more sense for MA in this case was simply to demand stict data access (physical) requirements, background screenings, corporate policy for drive and tape and serer disposal and scrubbing, but then, they'd not be doing anything the federal government did not already require for those of use hosting medical, credit card, or other private and secure data... We're already bound by these standards...
I listed the alternatives to buying from ARM direct, and included which one's leveraged ARM. By NOT noting intel was an ARM clone, that should have been obvious it was not an ARM chip. From what i can tell, Morestwon is also no an ARM based technology. There are others as well...
It's a COMPUTER monitor, not a TV... Those additional lines mean MORE ON SCREEN OBJECTS, better window management, more text, larger views of images, and the ability to view a 1080p video in a window while having the controls (other other objects not overlap it!
Its about USABILITY, not image quality. And yes, 1600 vertical lines is SUBSTANTIALLY better than 1080p on the same screen, if you have source video material at the higher resolution (like a video game).
The response times of 1080p and 1600 line displays are the same if both use the same techology. Also, check again about that 120 or 240Hz display... if you read the fine print, thats how quickly the TV's onboard engine can render frames, but has NOTHING to do with the grey-to-black or color-to-color repsonse time of the individual pixels, whith on even the best displays made is still not much less than 2ms... (which is NO WHERE NEAR 240 times per second)
You do not know what you are talking about. Go read some white papers, study LCD technology, and then come back and apologize.